Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Mobil does not want to produce leadfree gasoline which has to be used to make the catalyst work. Senator MUSKIE. I am glad you brought up the question of the leadfree gasoline. I wanted to make sure we addressed it. Are you satisfied that leadfree gasoline will be produced to implement your decision? Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes. Every indication we have from the petroleum industry is that they can provide one brand of lead-free gasoline by mid-1974, make it generally available. There are brands of leadfree gasoline currently being marketed in the Eastern part of the United States by some members of the petroleum industry. We think they can achieve this. Senator MUSKIE. Incidentally, I can't resist reading Chrysler's evaluation of the catalytic converter. This is their testimony before you. That ought to be read. The cost penalty will amount to hundreds of dollars a vehicle. The control systems are unreliable and widespread failure may lead to a consumer backlash. The catalysts will require large amount of platinum and palladium, expensive metals available only from South Africa and Russia. Cars equipped with catalysts must run on more costly leadfree gas. The fuel penalty will increase the drain on our natural resources and worsen an already serious balance of payments problem as we import additional oil. With that kind of evidence before it, for the life of me I fail to see how Chrysler could in good faith neglect the development of alternative engine systems. Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think they elected to try to get alternative standards. Senator MUSKIE. I am just puzzled as to how they can put out this drive and convince anybody that they made a good faith effort to solve this problem. It is incredible to me. I am sure there are questions that I have overlooked. I know I have a stack of them here. I will not plow through them to pull out those that have not been touched upon. I think in general these 3 days of hearings have given us a very useful insight into the basis for your decision. I think it was a pragmatic decision, to take a description out of one of the editorials I read on it, and I think it represents what you believe to be the best judgment and honest judgment for you to do. That still doesn't tell us what we should do as to the future because your options were limited to those given you by statute and by the facts that you have. It also doesn't deal with the campaign the industry is about to launch against the act, possibly against your decision. So all of that lies ahead of us. These hearings, I think were as important for the purpose of laying the groundwork for this uncertain future as it was to give us insights as to the basis of your decision. I do have this closing statement which ties in with my opening one. At the outset of these hearings, I indicated that I was seeking enlightenment as to why the American auto industry had failed to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. I also indicated that the Administrator's decision involved some very poor choices. It is clear that you don't agree that all those choices were poor as I might have suggested when I made that statement. 94-492 073-pt. 1 - 13 These hearings have been enlightening and they do underscore the choices which did confront the Administrator. I would like to examin those choices. The auto industry claims that emission controls will result in sig nificant fuel penalties, but they refused to consider more fuel efficien alternatives. The auto industry claims emission controls impose unacceptabl costs on the American public-but they refused to consider alterna tives which would have saved the American public as much as $15 billion. The auto industry claims emission controls are inconsistent wit public demands for performance, comfort, and style-but they hav never offered the American public a choice. The arrogance of the industry is best summed up in a statement b S. L. Terry, a vice president of Chrysler at the end of EPA's hearing We have introduced evidence showing the substantial fuel cost penalty fro these control systems. It is true that options such as air conditioning and aut matic transmissions also affect gasoline mileage. But it is one thing for many facturers to provide optional equipment which is a choice of the customer. It i quite another for a government agency to mandate a control system which goe beyond the need to protect public health and which imposes a fuel penalty o every car which the customer cannot avoid. I regret that basis for public or private policy. We are concerned about the health of people who cannot participate in the "choices" Mr Terry sets forth. We are concerned about the 50 percent of the American people who don't drive cars, the very old and the very young, and people who are most susceptible to the adverse effects of air pollution. Mr. Terry is not concerned about them because they are not his customers. I can only conclude on the basis of the evidence presented thus far that the auto industry has ignored this objective. The burden continues to be on them to convince the Congress that they have not. I appreciate the time and the patience you have given us, Mr. Ruckelshaus, and I hope these hearings have produced from your point of view as well as ours. Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been, I believe. very useful to us. [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.] |